NILAJ
v.
MGO LABS, LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a final judgment in garnishment against the garnishee.
Plaintiff filed a motion for a final judgment in garnishment against Truist Bank, NA, which was recommended by the Magistrate Judge. No objections wer…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Garnishment cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Plaintiff's unopposed motion for entry of a final judgment in garnishment against Garnishee Truist Bank, NA (Dkt. 97) and the United States Magistrate Judge's report recommending granting same and entering a final judgment of garnishment (Dkt. 98). The time for filing objections has passed. The Court reviews the legal conclusions de novo in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App'x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
After conducting an independent examination of the file, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's thorough and well-reasoned analysis and rules as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 98) is adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects and made a part of this order.
2. Plaintiff's motion for entry of a final judgment in garnishment against Garnishee Truist Bank NA (Dkt. 97) is granted.
3. The Clerk is directed to enter Final Judgment in Garnishment against Garnishee Truist Bank NA for $1,065.84.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on May 20, 2025.
s/William F. Jung WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record